Gun In Disney World?
Posted on December 10th, 2007 by Ogre
News reports from Sunday say that a 63-year old Pennsylvania woman was arrested for “for allegedly bringing a loaded semi-automatic into the park.” Oh, and she had scissors in her purse, too.
News reports don’t describe how much jail time this woman faces. However, I have a couple questions: What, exactly, did she do wrong? Who did she harm? Did her actions cause anyone actual, physical harm? Did she do something that put others in imminent danger? Was she then, or is she now a danger to, well, anyone else at all?
I honestly cannot see anything at all that she did wrong, nor any reason at all that our taxpayer dollars were used to “investigate” and arrest this woman.
Popularity: 34% [?]
Possibly similar posts - Rapist in School? Shhhh! Don’t Tell! - RWI? - Woman Flees Government… in America - Texas Continues to Battle Innocent People - Election Choices
Morning Ogre! I have a question in regard to this one.
I have to wonder if this woman had a concealed weapon permit or if the weapon was out in the open, did she have a permit? I do believe that carrying a weapon should require registration and permits for one’s own safety when dealing with law enforcement. But I also think if you have properly secured a “permit to carry” it should be reciprocal in all 50 states. With that being said, I do think one going into a public park should be “free to carry a weapon to protect oneself”. I don’t think government should infringe on that right, as it is the right to “refuse to be a victim”. And since government doesn’t seem to care much about the rights of victims in crime, the individual should be allowed to care enough not to become one.
The weapon was not out in the open. It was only visible to security people who searched through her purse (a requirement to entry to the park these days).
There is no way to tell all 50 states that they must recognize all other state’s permits — for example, Vermont has NO permit — everyone can carry concealed. If all other states were forced to recognize VT permits, then no one would ever need a permit again.
I already have a permit — it’s called the second amendment. I think any law that requires me to register, train, or certify my abilities is just plain wrong. Government’s job is NOT to protect me from myself.
As for the public park — I have no problem with any location that owned by a private individual (or company) with making any rules they want for entry. If they want to ban guns on their property, they should be allowed to (but I’m going to sue them if they fail to protect me). The government, however, has absolutely no business telling people they cannot defend themselves in any public location.
Hummm… you make an excellent point. I guess when my 5x Great Grandfather was called up to serve the Federal Government in the War of 1812 (he belonged to a South Carolina militia then), nobody was concerned with wheither or not his gun was registered since the Brits were sacking and burning Washington and attacking Baltimore! And of course, criminals aren’t required to register their weapons. But in the event of theft, isn’t it a good idea to have your weapon registered for your own protection? I guess that sort of registration as simply owning it is not the same, correct? You have to forgive me, but I am not familiar with the situation with firearms other than the second amendment gives us the right to bear arms.
There are few places where there is such a registration as you describe. Most states make sure those who purchase weapons are allowed to buy them — but then do not keep track of things like serial numbers. I don’t think having a serial number registered with the police in any case will help, well, anyone. I know what my guns’ serial numbers are, and if they’re stolen, then I’ll tell the police which one was taken from me. Then, if they find it at a pawn shop or used in a crime, they’ll know who to return it to.
And a minor point — the Second Amendment does not give us the right to bear arms. We HAVE that right. It’s an inalienable right, according to the founding fathers. The second amendment was designed to PROTECT that right and ensure the government didn’t try to take it away from us.
It has always been my impression, that we have that right protected as a way to help keep government from taking over, like it is trying to do now. Kind of like a failsafe over governments head should someone decide they want to be a dictator and not a president?
Thanks for the info, as I am incredibly ignorant about firearms, etc. I was raised in an environment where “ladies” weren’t encouraged in that way. Our society has evolved into a state where I am questioning that and have a strong interest in learning more about it.
Indeed, the primary purpose of putting the second amendment in the Constitution was to ensure that the government could not disarm the people. Every government, throughout history, that has disarmed the people has become more oppressive.
In France during the French Revolution, were the people disarmed? Just curious.
I think our founding fathers were in many cases, such as Jefferson, wise beyond their years.
During the French Revolution, much of those who were revolting were actually professional soldiers. And they stormed the Bastille early on, which provided a large supply of arms, no matter what the monarchy intended.
I am not as well versed on European History as I’d like to be. I am of the opinion that in France they tried to keep control of the masses by keeping them “poor”. Too poor to buy food (keep them too weak to fight), and too poor to buy a weapon. When you start passing that on down to your troops… mistake! Thanks for the history explaination.
Well, France was a good example of someone with total control and power that simply let that power go to their head. I’m sure you’ve heard that old “Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” — and the situation in France was indeed a clear example of the latter.